EU Anti-Deforestation Law Largely 'Gutted' Despite Initial Fanfare

It was a pioneering regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."